Posted
by
Zonk
on Thursday November 17, 2005 @10:29AM
from the apple-christmas dept.

axonis writes "Apple is planning to release its first entry-level iBook laptops with Intel processors next January at Macworld Expo in San Francisco, highly reliable sources have confirmed to Think Secret." From the article: "Apple will almost certainly tap Intel's forthcoming Yonah processor for the iBooks, a successor to the company's Pentium M. It is unknown whether Apple will go with a dual-core version of the processor, slated for release in January, or a single-core version, which Intel announced in August would be delivered shortly after the dual-core version. The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks."

"enough". Apple's been silently distrubiting updates as fat-binaries. It's very likely you won't notice, or even care for that matter, but I'm sure in a few [weeks/months/years] someone will have a binary stripper to remove the unnessicary part of the Universal Binary.

I think Apple just gave mid summer as an estimate to give the developers of 3rd party applications more time, as well as themselves if they needed it. Now they've figured out that the developers were quick to transition, everyone's bitting at the chops, and delaying it any longer seems to be a bad idea. Can't wait to get my hands on one.

I think Apple just gave mid summer as an estimate to give the developers of 3rd party applications more time, as well as themselves if they needed it. Now they've figured out that the developers were quick to transition, everyone's bitting at the chops, and delaying it any longer seems to be a bad idea. Can't wait to get my hands on one.

Makes me wonder: is this jump in the schedule because developers were quick to transition, or because customers were holding off their purchases until they saw the new Intel models?

Makes me wonder: is this jump in the schedule because developers were quick to transition, or because customers were holding off their purchases until they saw the new Intel models?

I'd think the iBook market would be one of the least affected by this phenomenon, since the lion's share of potential iBook buyers - people who get their product announcements from TV commercials - aren't even aware that there's a switch in the pipeline. And if Apple's suffering from "purchase delay" now, imagine how bad it'll

> They've made their opinion quite clear as of recent that they couldn't care less about the direction Apple is moving

I thought the Adobe CEO was at the Intel annoucement and said something like "We wanted you to switch to Intel years ago!"

Personally, I think Adobe will be ready, but they will be ready according to the pre-determined CS3 product schedule, meaning late 2006. (Because they have apps built around the old environments, it is not just a recompile for them.)

Adobe was prominently on stage for the announcement of Apple moving to Intel and promised their eventual support. They did say that there was going to be a bit of work because they were still a PowerPlant house, but they were going to make the transition.

And that does not take into account the recent announcement from Metroworks that they were going to make a PowerPlant Mac/Intel version of their compiler after all. That could make the transition much easier. I would still rather that they moved over to an XCode project, but that might not be convenient with the requirement that this build quickly on both MacOS X and Windows from the same codebase (it is of course possible... I am talking about convenient).

Now Apple has released a few great products recently, and in the video space they are directly competing with Adobe... although most people would say that they are more accurately competing against Avid... But in the image space: I can't think of any product that Adobe makes that compares with Aperture... unless you talk about the image browser in Photoshop, and that is really stretching things. Aperture is going to sell more copies of Photoshop.

And that does not take into account the recent announcement from Metroworks that they were going to make a PowerPlant Mac/Intel version of their compiler after all.

There has been no such announcement. I don't know where you got this; I can only think that perhaps you are confusing it with MW's work on open-sourcing the PowerPlant framework so the community can move it forward with GCC and Intel compatibility. But MW is out of the x86 compiler business, period.

This guy's talking out of his ass. First of all, Metrowerks has not made any announcements that they will make a Mac/Intel version of CodeWarrior (CodeWarrior is the compiler, PowerPlant is the framework). In fact, Metrowerks announced that CodeWarrior 10 would be the last release of CodeWarrior for the Mac platform. Period. End of story. That's why the latest release is so cheap ($99, download only). Also, Metrowerks no longer even exists as a company inside of Motorola. All Metrowerks/Motorola is doing for PowerPlant (the C++ GUI framework) is releasing it as open source so that someone else will be able to port it to MacIntel, they aren't going to be doing any of the Intel work.

The main reason CodeWarrior had to come to an end on the Mac is because Metrowerks/Motorola sold all of it's x86 compiler technology to a third party, Nokia I believe. They no longer have the rights to develop an x86 version of CodeWarrior. No x86 version means no future on the Mac. Though many of us have seen the writing on the wall for a long time and have expected CodeWarrior to come to an end sooner rather than later.

Adobe will be moving to Xcode because everyone has to move to Xcode. There is no other option.

Also, to put the Adobe comments into context, Adobe's CEO Bruce Chizen had an interview with CNet [com.com] where he discussed the difficulties in the transition as well as Adobe's possible timeframe:

Q: I wanted to get your take on Apple's switch to Intel. How difficult is the process of migrating apps from platform to platform?Chizen: Steve (Jobs) likes to trivialize the process and make it seem easy, but moving the apps over is not that easy...Getting over to MacTel is work...

Q: What are the early returns from the people doing some of the work with the developer market? Not that easy, is it?Chizen: It's not that easy because you have to compile the app, you have to test it. If you look at most testing cycles, for any complex cycle, for any complex product, that's three or four months until it's out. You just can't turn a switch and get a MacTel product--and Steve knows that.

Q: So, when do you think that Adobe will be ready to take Photoshop?Chizen: I haven't given a date yet... If you look at our product cycles for products like Photoshop and Creative Suite, they tend to be in the 18- to 24-month cycle, which means that you're talking about either Q4 of '06 or Q1 of '07.

Contrary to what a lot of mindless posters think, the transition is a lot of work and will be very difficult for many companies.

Except when it comes to resale value. I keep looking on eBay and seeing old PowerBooks going for significantly more than an equivalent-spect iBook - sometimes even when the iBook is new. I have no idea why this should be.

I believe that purchasers of consumer machines, like the iBook, are more heavily dependent on the bundled software that Apple provides. Keep in mind that the consumer machines come with AppleWorks, a basic suite with word processing, spreadsheet, etc. Coming from Apple all of the bundled software will be native Intel code.

As far as other software, with the exception of games and computationally intensive programs - the latter being odd to fi

Well, it should be no surprise, after that high-end Apple laptops improved *not* *one* *hertz* on the high end since January. Still this is pretty big news, since the PowerBook has had to advance in every other area in the interrim--backlit keyboards, scrolling trackpad, now high-density displays.

But it will be nice to again have a PowerBook that is actually somewhat fast.

Oh, I forgot to disclose to you all my secret insider information that Intel PowerBooks will be released too, since even a single-core Yonah would have to be hobbled like the dude in that Heinlein story not to burn fiery rings around the circa-2004 processors in the shiny PowerBooks.

Intel-"Ready": All binaries (libraries, applications, frameworks, drivers, kernel) are set up to run on either PPC or Intel archtectures.
This means the software is "Intel-Ready", just as your computer might come "Internet-ready"; it has all the software installed and configured for any number of different internet connections, but it is up to you to choose which one to use.

The only issue I see is dust-busting the system to remove all the cruft you don't need; Fat binaries are a waste of space if you're

My understanding is the iBook and the Mac Mini use the same components.

Surely if Apple announces an Intel based iBook, an Intel based Mac Mini will be there too? Or will follow very shortly.

Minis are closer to Powerbooks, but either way, it raises a question for me. The Mac mini, PowerBooks, and iBooks all use similar components. If the switch to Intel is going to allow Apple to make their laptops thinner, lighter, more power-efficient, and more powerful, wouldn't it be a mistake to upgrade iBooks without upgrading PowerBooks? Otherwise, you'd probably end up with iBooks (the budget model) that were better than PowerBooks (the high-end).

Also, if the Intel iBooks are really that great, and the price drops a couple hundred dollars (which has been reported), then wouldn't it start to cut into the Mini's market? I mean, is it worth getting the Mini for $700 when you can get a much better computer, in laptop form, for $800?

So, if I were Apple, I don't think I'd let there be much of a delay between the release of Intel iBooks and the Intel PowerBooks/Minis. If I didn't do it all at the same time, I wouldn't be planning to sell many PowerPC models during the lag.

At least since the iMac, probably since the 6500 (the first personal computer- x86 OR PPC -to break 300mhz), Apple has ALWAYS lead the jump to new and improved technology and aesthetics with the consumer hardware. The pro hardware comes along later - learning from flaws in the revA consumer stuff and fitting in new features in the process.

There's also a good chunk of mac fanboi out there that are all OMG!!!!! GLEEEEE!!!!!!!! when Apple releases new kit. We're talking the kind of people that bought an iMac, then turned right around and bought a blue-and-white G3 when those were released.

Also... the big advantage of the mini is you're not bound to a specific keyboard and monitor. Much as I love my iBook, the keyboard blows compared to my old powerbook and a 12" display makes my face hurt (it's nice but it's too damned small for my eyes) - the mini lets me use my existing pile of mid-90s Apple CRTs (DVI -> VGA adapter with a VGA -> 25-pin Mac adapter plugged into that, FOR THE WIN!) and my existing keyboards and input devices. It's certainly true that if you're starting fresh (say, just out of high school), a notebook is a much better bang for the buck... but if your house is the Macintosh equivalent of an elephant graveyard, the mini fits into that magic slot of "slightly more expensive than a processor upgrade."

"Apple has ALWAYS lead the jump to new and improved technology and aesthetics with the consumer hardware. The pro hardware comes along later"

Right, like when they introduced the 68030, 68040, PPC601, PPC603, PPC604, PPC603e, PPC604e, G3, G4 and G5 chips in their professional hardware first, then let it trickle down to the consumer line. Or SATA. Or Firewire. Or Firewire 800. Or USB 2. Or DDR RAM. Or the switch from NuBUS to PCI. Or the switch from PCI to PCI-X. Or the switch from SCSI to IDE. Or introduci

I think you're right that the Quadra 630 was the first IDE Mac, but then the Quadra 630 was pro line when it came out in '94. the Centris was sort of bridging the gap between consumer and pro. LC's were still the consumer line back then. So again, new technology (for Apple at least) on pro hardware first.

Still, that said, you're basically right about IDE, (they went back to SCSI next time they released pro hardware with the jump to PPC and the 6100, etc.) but the whole IDE thing is a bad example for me to

The rumor of a ~$800 iBook came from the same source that indicated a Intel iBook in January. Apparently, the same source that also predicted the Mini and photo iPod.
The Mini is a "loss leader" of sorts, Apple is really betting on the second and hopefully "bigger" Mac that Mini owners eventually buy.

No doubt that the Mini was produced in the hopes of luring Windows customers, but it isn't a "loss leader". I bet we see a $400 Mini within the next year, and even that wi

Does that mean the next january which will occur or the next one after 'this' january. The first seems way too soon (three months!).

God I hate this particular phrase. It confuses me almost every time. I wish we had some clearer system where we would just say a number before the month/day to indicate how many away it was for small numbers. So instead of next january meaning the first january after this we could say 'the first january' and the next one would be 'the second january'.

So could someone please reply and tell me which it is. Also wouldn't hurt to add it in the story.

WTF does WTD mean? I'm usually pretty good wth acronyms, but nothing I can come up with makes sense in context. Please don't tell me you were trying for some clean version of WTF. "What The Damn does *next* January mean?" just doesn't work. If that's the case, allow me to recommend "WTH" for your delicate sensibilities. You can even tell your friends that the "H" stands for "Heck".

I'm guessing they'll go with the single core since the gap between the ibook and powerbook is already so small, especially the 12" versions.

(personally, I don't see the point of the 12" powerbook at all. imo the ibook looks a lot better at 12" - the metal look suits the larger laptops better since they are wider and seem thinner. the 12" powerbook looks like a fat, heavy piece of metal. ymmv)

My money is on the "Celeron-M" being in both the iBook and the Mini (if the Mini survives the transition). That would allow them to put single-core Pentium-M in most of the Powerbook line, with the dual-core only in special pro models.

Apple will play dual-core laptops for all the margin they're worth, which means there's no way they will be introduced at the bottom or even the middle of the line-up.

Is if they continue to put cheap stuff in their entry-level machines which are still always going to be more expensive than the windows equivilants. Specifically in the ram and video card department. I mean the people who want OSX anyway are always going to pay a few hundred extra because they want that but to increase market share and become more mainstream I really think they have to make sure they offer the right ammount of power/screenquality/ram/whatever else for the $ , not just a cool physical design.

I still think people are buying the iBooks for the coolness, because it is the far better looking than your boring corporate compaq/dell laptops. However for those who don't mind spending the money, nothing beats the custom color beefed up Hypersonic laptop line. http://www.hypersonic-pc.com/ [hypersonic-pc.com]

Although I'm very (VERY) interested to see what Apple's design crew comes up with for these Intel-based machines, the real drama is going to involve watching OS X make its way into the wild, whacky world of x86 commodity hardware. Surely this is going to be one of the most sought-after hacks in the world after the first final release of OS X Intel hits the streets.
God help whichever Apple lackey is within 100 yards of SJ when this happens.

"I don't see a need for Apple to go much below $1,000 unless they are going to offer a really low-end iBook with really low-end features," he said. "Cheap (Windows-based) notebooks are just that. Cheap. They have low-resolution, small hard drives, little memory. Apple doesn't need to compete their. They could keep the price the same and offer more. If you're going to lower prices (on iBooks), then lower them on the high end, and add a third, higher-end model that comes at $1,299."

Just as a point of information: Apple will not introduce such dense displays until the GUI is completely independent of raster characteristics; otherwise, you would see some extremely tiny UI elements in such a screen on a laptop...

Once Apple has enough developers transitioned to the new imaging model (Quartz 2D) rather than QuickDraw, I imagine they will initiate this move in the hardware.

Does anyone appreciate the irony in Microsoft using the PowerPC chip in its XBox and Apple using Intel in its laptops? Both need to implement "on the fly" code conversion to maintain compatibility with older programs. I wonder who has done a better job at an universal converter. (With the XBox 360 some programs have not been made compatible. I wonder if Apple can hit 100%?)

Of course, as of right now Intel is behind the curve in performance compared to AMD. Presumably if MS can get custom PPC chips, Apple will be getting the hottest and latest Intel chips--maybe even custom.

I expect Apple to get 100% compatibility via Rosetta quite easily. the only difference is speed - MS needs to run games in "real time" whereas computer programs being a bit slower isn't too much of a problem.

Presumably if MS can get custom PPC chips, Apple will be getting the hottest and latest Intel chips--maybe even custom.

The MS guys have been working with IBM engineers for 2 years to build the XBOX360 chip (based on the IBM PPE design, which is also PS3's Cell root and more than likely the base of Revolution's CPU as well. A completely different beast than the Power4 which was the base for Apple's Power970 chips)

It should also be mentioned that it is far easier to make high performance, processor with high power consumption, than the a high performance processor with low power consumption. The later is what Apple was wanting, but IBM was not delivering and ironically I wonder whether the choice of both the Nintendo and Microsoft to use PowerPC, shifted IBM's priorities and thus forced Apple to make the shift?As to whether the new Macs could come out as early as January, it certainly is possible, but I am not going

I just bought my PowerBook G4. But then again, it runs all my current software/games flawlessly. As much as I love my Macs, any time I've bought first gen products they've been sub-par. I think I'll wait a year or two so that there's a good enough collection of native software available.

Starting to look jealously at some of the offerings out there in the PC world.. not paying powerbook prices for the 12" one they have, and it'd be nice to have widescreen. My 15" albook is nice but kinda big to be really portable.

Apple says they'll deliver something by a particular date, and instead deliver it six months earlier. That's very cool. Microsoft should learn from them and stop promising and then failing to deliver products on time.

Management of deadlines is as much about not missing deadlines as it is setting realistic timeframes. If someone tells me a project will be done in six months and they complete it in six weeks, I want to know why the original timeline was so poorly calculated.

"Greater than current G4" isn't setting the bar very high, especially if they go with the dual core chip (which would certainly be nice). I hesitate to risk a flamewar by asserting that current Pentium-M's are already a lot faster than the G4, but they are, so I will.

"The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks."

Could? The dual-core Yonah's had better deliver performance better than any of Apple's current laptop lineup. One of the main reasons for the switch to Intel is the sad state of Motorola and IBM's low-power chips.

Other places [appleinsider.com] are indicating that Apple will release the Powerbooks first because the higher performance CPUs are what Intel has available now, with the lower performance ones coming in the Spring.

...how they implement the instant-on stuff. None of this "hibernation" crap, when I open my powerbook, I start working. Done and done.

And it it can be easily implemented on Intel arch, why hasn't it been done?

My old ThinkPad 600X takes many seconds to start up from suspend. OTOH my new ThinkPad X40 wakes in about a second. I open it, count to one, and start working. Done and done. Hibernation is optional (and very nice on this machine, about 20 seconds cold start, I basically use it instead of power off).

I think the main difference between Suspend and Sleep is the power usage. Macs use only a few % of power per day in sleep, so it's perfectly realistic to *never* turn off your laptop, even if you go for a week without using it. Whereas my friends' Dells use so much power in Suspend mode that if they leave it for more than a day they risk draining the battery. I also haven't seen wake-on-open (vs. wake-on-keypress), but that must due to cheap manufacturers' implementations. I can't imagine there's a difference between the two at a BIOS level.

I don't know if the difference in power usage represents something fundamental, or just different designers being more or less careful with power management. I don't really doubt that Apple will be just as careful with their Intel designs as they have been with their PowePC ones.

Yeah, the G4 really is a nice little laptop processor if you can feed it instructions and data fast enough. Sadly, most G4 machines were unable to do this consistently because of the bus and the type of memory modules. The latest iteration of the PowerBooks [apple.com] made an improvement in this regard. The processor isn't much faster than the last rev, but these machines feel much faster, probably because of the increased bandwidth between the processor and memory. For audio applications like GarageBand, the AltiVec [wikipedia.org] unit really increases the effective instructions-per-clock. The way they've offloaded a lot of work onto the GPU has helped to extend the life of the G4 too.

The highly reliable sources ThinkSecret often cites, most of the time produces so, so predictions.

Statments like "The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks." does not sound too reliable. Why on earth would Apple intro systems with less performance than current models -- and I am not just thinking in terms of real processsor performance, but perceived system performance? They'd be the laughing stock of the industry. Unless they can put a system into the market that gives a noticeable better performance than what is possible with the G4, they will wait. Apple does not want the Intel experience to be mediocre. They want it to be top notch.

I find the predictions AppleInsider made last Friday to be more sensible, but I am still not sure if Apple would put the 32-bit Yonah into the iMac, as it may be seen as a step back from the 64-bit G5. I've commented on Apple's 64-bit roadmap and how to get there [andwest.com], mentioning av 64-bit Yonah, which is really the Merom. Perhaps Intel may have been able to bring this chip forward in time from fall 2006 to this spring, enabling Apple to go straight to 64-bit from day one.

...and introduce a light weight touch screen laptop that combines some of the concepts of MiT's sub $100 machine, a Sony VAIO (or is it VIAO?), the current iBook build quality and a swivel screen. An Inkwell based pen driven interface would be far more intuitive and offers a natural instinctive GUI - just what children need to stimulate their imaginations. The whole paradigm of using a mouse, trackpad and keyboard is so counter productive, except for specific desktop and power user applications. Bring on the PowerPad! Intel inside, Inkwell outside!

If this rumour proves true, it will be an interesting shift for Apple. Apple has traditionally kept its consumer machines at much lower performance levels than its pro machines. The notable exception being the current G5 iMac vs G4 PowerBook. But I can't remember a time when the iBooks would outpace the PowerBooks (or the iMacs outpace the PowerMacs). Yet with the Intel upgrade (as TFA said), a Yonah-iBook would likely perform more strongly (on universal binary apps anyway) than a G4 PowerBook. Interesting times indeed....

The dual-core Yonah chip could very likely deliver performance greater than Apple's current G4-based PowerBooks.

Could very likely? That's quite a bit of uncertainty.

The Pentium M is roughly performance-equivalent to an Athlon64 of the same clockspeed (The PM is still a bit weak in the multimedia department, but Yonah is expected to fix that. The statement holds true for gaming, at least). Assuming that the dual core Yonah ships at the same max speed as current Dothan processors, that means 2.26GHz. That's roughly an Athlon64 X2 4400+. The PowerBook ships with a single 1.67GHz G4. I think it is safe to say that the processor "definately destroys performance-wise" rather than "could very likely deliver performance greater than".

I'm ECSTATIC about this news - as long as the rumored ability to dual-boot Windows XP is a reality.

I can easily justify the purchase of an iBook as a desktop replacement for my boss if the cost stays at around $1000. For this price, he'd be "buying" my current system as a replacement/"new" PC for others in the company as well as a portable system for me to use at home. However, this is only feasible in my environment if the machine can dual-boot Windows. I am a current Mac user and will be able to use OS X for its UNIX-y goodness but will have to fight Redmond's best minds from time to time as I use several tools that are only available in Microsoft-land. suspect that I'm not alone and that there is a sizeable market for users like me with bosses like mine.

I can't help but think that since Apple is a hardware company - and not a software company - that they don't care what we do with the hardware once we have it in our grubby little mitts.

I'm ECSTATIC about this news - as long as the rumored ability to dual-boot Windows XP is a reality.

I think it's even better than that - I think there'll be affordable solutions allowing Windows apps to run at basically full speed under OSX, in a sandbox where they can't harm the rest of the OSX system. Should be sweet, no dual booting!

For supposedly being the "graphics" platform the resolutions of the Apple laptops have always been pathetically low. I was running 1920x1200 on my 15.4" laptop, and now I'm running 1280x768 on my 10.6". 1024x768 on a 12.1" doesn't cut it, and it REALLY doesn't cut it on a 14.1".

I just bought an Access Virus TI Desktop [access-music.de] and the fact that you can use it as an audio and MIDI interface as well as a knob box with direct access with a VST plugin is making me seriously consider moving away from Linux after five years... I can't stand MacOS, but I can't stand dualbooting even more.

I agree that the 12 inch powerbook screen needs to be updated, and I have a feeling it's about to change to a widescreen format. But iBooks are meant for students, and doing basic tasks. If you need more screen get a Powerbook. The last revision of the 15 inch powerbook saw an increase in the screen resolution. I have an older tiBook, and I love the screen as-is.

Don't forget about an external monitor through DVI. I recently went laptop shopping (I needed an XP machine), and I couldn't find a laptop with

The low resolution is because of, not in spite of, Mac OS being a graphics platform. Apple displays are all (with the exception of the 14" iBook) 100dpi. This means it is very easy to ensure that things are the same size on screen as on paper. Increasing the resolution by a small amount would introduce scaling artifacts when enlarging any pixmap UI elements. I would imagine that they will probably only upgrade to 150 or even 200dpi (I have a 225dpi display on my Nokia 770, and it is very, very nice). W

More importantly: Will they also upgrade the PPC models at Macworld in January? I'd buy a powerbook instantly if it had a better graphics card. Radeon 9700? Sorry, that's not a notebook with a few years of lifespan.

TPM or TCM would be used to prevent you from running OS X on non-Apple hardware, so it wouldn't negatively impact you if you're running Apple hardware. You are free to run Linux or Windows on an Intel Mac, as has been publically stated by Phil Schiller, Apple's VP of Marketing.

When you buy an Intel PowerBook, you're buying into the most evil technology imaginable

Funny, I can imagine much more evil technology than an Intel Powerbook,Starting off with something along the lines of a gigantic painful death ray that dissolves your skin firstthen fries your nerve endings before it finally boils your blood and liquifies your bones, thereby killing youuntil you die to death. Now THATS evil.Even a laptop that shocks you when you make spelling errors seems more evil to me, Or a Gateway 2000,Or that little wiggly controller on IBM thinkpads, the mousenipple or whatever it is called... Folks, me and myimagination have all day to out evil the Intel Powerbook. Apparently you, Sir, have underestimated me in yourhyperbolic haste.

When I take notes in my music history class my spell checker borks on almost all of the names and most of the terms. The problem is that a lot of the time I'm switching into german or italian. A spell checker with any warning more severe than a red underline needs to be a lot smarter than anything we have now.

See here's the thing. This is software, not the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not going to deprive myself of an enjoyable and easy to use computing experience provided by Apple (or even Microsoft) just so I can be "free" with "Only If Your Time Is Worthless Linux".

Think their marketing message is that it is 'revolutionary', and hence 360. xbox 180 would be saying whatever we did last was wrong and we are going a totally different direction, but that isn't the message they feel is correct. They want people to perceive that they have been getting it right, but this next console will revolutionize things along the path they demonstrated, but not abandoning the overall strategic direction.Yes, it marketize and is confusing, but xbox 180 clearly would send the wrong me

..what's the truth here? Are Intel processors more powerful than Motorola/IBM?

The truth is that Apple told the truth but that it was cleverly phrased by marketing people so that consumers, and/or more importantly zealots, would misinterpret it. The truth is that:

1. Historically and in general a PowerPC CPU is 25-35% faster than an Intel CPU of the *same* clockrate. Apple used phrases like "up to twice as fast" and this was true, you could find a specialized app that greatly benefitted from the RISC architecture of the PowerPC and get to 2X. However clockrates were not the same, clockrate is not the perfect measurement but it does matter.

2. Apple was disingenuous in some of it's comparisons, the comparisons were "rigged" to a certain degree. The ByteMarks comparison where they used an old 486 version on a Pentium CPU. Fudged SPEC comparisons. Gcc "leveling the playing field" when gcc x86 is known to be weaker than gcc ppc and better x86 compilers are used for commercial x86 apps. Apple didn't lie, they did fully disclose all this in the "small print" but few had the technical sophistication to understand. While unacceptable in a paper presented to a scientific journal it was all pretty standard stuff for maketing literature and advertisements.

Err... because it's a Mac, is faster than a G4 Mac, but still runs OS X? I *like* OS X, but that's not what "zealot" means. Nor does "zealot" mean "someone who disagrees with Nagora." "Zealot" means "A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in their religious, political, or other ideals." Interestingly, you and I can be on opposite sides of the "Is OS X better than Windows?" question and still both be right. Those are "opinions", you see. To each cat his own rat, and all that.

Oh, and here's another definition for you: "Troll: 2) Informal computing. A message or posting on the internet designed to provoke an indignant response in the reader." My opinion is that you got downmodded, not by zealots, but for posting a troll. HAND.

Interestingly, you and I can be on opposite sides of the "Is OS X better than Windows?" question and still both be right.

I agree. The difference is that I will get modded into oblivion and you won't. It is impossible to discuss any negative opinions of Apple on/. It is taken as gospel by many Mac users that there is nothing to be learnt from Windows and that Linux is in some prehistoric age. But, using a window manager where the windows can be moved without skimming right up to the top, or resized from a

The current Mac GUI stinks. I have to use it occassionaly for work and it drives me nuts with frustration. Just moving the windows about or (much worse) resizing them is a nightmare on a large screen. The Dock is far too limited, the menu bar too far away, the general layout of the control panel, to say nothing of the madness which is the file tree with its "sometimes I'm Unix, sometimes I'm MacOS" tangle. I hate it.

To give you professional advice, it appears your mastery of moving the mouse cursor across the screen and clicking leaves something to be desired. May I suggest buying a lubricated mouse pad for easier motion til your arm gets strong enough to drag items into the dock on a regular basis.

Not sure how a "too far away" menubar could possibly be a benefit. It was done that way to make it easier to get to. His point that the screen has outgrown the UI is spot-on. The menubar is no longer easy to use.

Of course, the answer to the question is to run OSX. That's obvious in any case. The real question is "why?"